Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal (“MJOA”) directed at a dangerous weapon allegation and that it erred in failing to give jury instructions on attempt, as a lesser-included offense on each of the two charges. Defendant argued that the trial court should have granted his MJOA because the spoon was not actually used as a dangerous weapon. Defendant further argued that the court should have given the jury instructions on attempt, because the jury could have concluded that the spoon was only partially sharpened and was only an attempted weapon. This Court finds that the circumstances of a dangerous weapon’s use, rather than design features, convert an object into a dangerous weapon. This Court also found that there was evidence from which a jury could infer that the spoon was not yet a weapon because he had not completed sharpening it and was merely in the process of making a weapon.” ORS 166.275. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s MJOA on the dangerous-weapon allegation and Defendant was entitled to have had the jury consider an attempt version of each charge. Denial of the MJOA directed to the dangerous-weapon allegation reversed and weapon and contraband charged reversed and remanded.